_A Duty to PrincipleBill Fortenberry

___I was recently sent a copy of an article by Stephen
McDowell entitled, “Obama, Romney, Other: Who Should Christians Vote for in the
2012 Election?” I was genuinely looking
forward to reading this article since I had been told that Mr. McDowell had
provided an excellent counterpoint to my own article, “A Biblical Strategy for
Voting.” I took the first opportunity
that presented itself, read the article through and then proceeded to engulf
myself in a six hour comparison of Mr. McDowell’s position with the teachings
of the Scripture. I’ll spare you from
having to read through the full details of that study, but I would like to
share a few observations that I think every Christian should consider.

Mr. McDowell based his examination of the candidates
primarily on two verses which he correctly identified as qualifications for
certain elected officials in the Bible.
Those two verses are Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13. One thing that Mr. McDowell failed to mention
from the outset is that these verses were specifically written as requirements
for members of the legislature, not for the head of the executive branch of the
government. The requirements for the chief executive are found in Deuteronomy
17:15-20. Nevertheless, the requirements
for both offices are very similar, and I think that it will suffice for now to
focus solely on the verses that Mr. McDowell listed.

These two verses present several qualifications for elected
office which Mr. McDowell has grouped into three major categories - faith (the
fear of God), morality (truthfulness and a lack of covetousness) and a biblical
worldview (wisdom and discernment). I
agree with Mr. McDowell's statement that "we should understand the
Biblical qualifications for leaders, learn of the character and worldview of
the candidates, and vote accordingly."
However, immediately after making this statement, he proceeded to
explain why he would not be following his own advice in this election. He said, "I will only be comparing
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney since there is no chance that any other candidate
can win." I was sorely disappointed
to note that he did not provide a single passage of Scripture to support this
decision. According to Mr. McDowell, the
Bible teaches that we should vote in accordance with how the candidates measure
up to the Biblical qualifications for leaders (and he was very clear in his
listing of those qualifications); but when it came time to compare the
candidates with that standard, he added an additional qualification. In order to receive Mr. McDowell's vote, a
candidate must first convince Mr. McDowell that he has a chance of
winning. This is a purely humanistic
qualification for which he did not even attempt to provide scriptural support.

This single observation provides us with sufficient cause
to reject all of Mr. McDowell's article, but for sake of argument, let's extend
our analysis to his comparison of the "two" candidates to the list of
qualifications which God laid out in the Bible.

The first qualification was given as faith or, in other
words, the fear of God; and I found it very interesting to note the difference
between Mr. McDowell's presentation of the two candidates. His analysis of President Obama consisted of
two full columns of text explaining why Christians should not conclude that the
President is a man who fears God. His
analysis of Mr. Romney, on the other hand, was not an analysis at all but
rather an attempt to explain why having a Mormon in the White House would be
better for our nation than any of the professing Christians who have inhabited
that dwelling place. Intriguingly, Mr.
McDowell relied on three different passages of Scripture to explain why he does
not believe that President Obama fears God, but he did not present a single
verse to support his preference for a Mormon in the White House. In fact, Mr. McDowell's entire segment on Mr.
Romney ignores the clear teaching of Scripture found in Proverbs 29:2 which
states that "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but
when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."

I should point out that Mr. McDowell did conclude this
segment of his article by admitting that "Neither candidate acts like a
regenerated believer who meets the qualification of fearing God as the Bible
presents." I agree with this
statement. However, Mr. McDowell acts as
if this fact negates the importance of the entire first category of biblical
qualifications for leadership. He is
apparently of the opinion that if neither candidate meets one of the
requirements, then the requirement itself should be abandoned, and I am very
much in disagreement with this opinion.
What if neither of the two major parties nominated a candidate who was
over the age of thirty-five? Would Mr.
McDowell then conclude that it is acceptable to throw out that
requirement? I am sure that he would
not, and I see no reason to abandon God's requirement for leadership under
similar conditions. If neither of the
two major candidates fears the Lord, then neither of them should be considered
eligible for office.

Let's proceed to Mr. McDowell's second category of qualifications
which he described as morality or Christian character. To compare the two candidates with this
qualification, Mr. McDowell focused on what he referred to as "the two
most important moral issues" - abortion and homosexuality. Once again, Mr. McDowell aptly and correctly
demonstrated that President Obama does not measure up to God's standard on
these two issues, and once again, he devoted his segment on Mr. Romney to
explaining why Mr. Romney's failure to measure up to that standard is acceptable. He did this in the area of abortion by
describing Mr. Romney's position as pro-life even though he quoted Mr. Romney's
admission that he believes mothers should have the right to kill their children
for a variety of reasons. Mr. McDowell
then proceeded to excuse Mr. Romney's acceptance of homosexuality by saying
that at least he is opposed to homosexual marriage. Just as in the previous segment, Mr. McDowell
completely neglected to consult the Scriptures in regards to his excuses for
Mr. Romney. Nowhere in the Bible do we
find that it is okay to kill a child if the pregnancy might have an effect on
the mother's health, and God never once excuses those who accept homosexuality
just because they oppose homosexual marriage.
In this category as well as the first, we find that neither of the major
candidates meets God's qualification.

Mr. McDowell's third category was that of a biblical
worldview. He included in this category
the three statements from Scripture that elected leaders should be men of truth,
wisdom and understanding or discernment.
In this segment, Mr. McDowell made the most remarkable claim of the
entire article. He wrote that "In
many ways this third qualification is of most importance." In other words, Mr. McDowell believes that it
is more important for our President to have a biblical worldview than it is for
him to be a Christian who fears God and keeps His commandments. Of course, he did not provide any Scripture
to support this idea. He did eventually
reference Proverbs 23:7 in order to prove that a President's worldview will
determine how he governs, but that does not in any way tell us that having a
proper worldview is more important than the fear of the Lord. On the contrary, we find in Scripture that it
is impossible for a candidate to be a man of truth, wisdom and understanding
without the fear of the Lord. Proverbs
9:10 tells us that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and
the knowledge of the holy is understanding." In John 17:17, Jesus said to the Father,
"Thy word is truth." And in
Ephesians 4:21 we read that "the truth is in Jesus." No candidate who rejects the fear of the Lord
and the teachings of the Word of God is even capable of having a biblical
worldview.

This fact is plainly seen in Mr. McDowell's own analysis
of the two candidates. In order to
demonstrate that Mr. Romney has a biblical worldview, he focused solely on the
policies of the two candidates with regards to the economy of our nation, and
concluded that Mr. Romney must have a biblical worldview and should be voted
for because he promises to allow "all individuals to keep more of their
money." This is a direct reversal
of the teachings of Scripture. The Bible
teaches that wisdom (which only comes from a fear of the Lord) is far more
valuable than any monetary wealth. In
Proverbs 16:16 we read, "How much better is it to get wisdom than gold!
and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver!" And in verse eight of the same chapter we are
told, "Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without
right." Voting for a particular
candidate just because he has promised to increase our wealth is decidedly
unscriptural, and I was astounded to see Mr. McDowell suggest such a thing.

So where does this analysis leave us? According to the Bible we should vote for men
who fear the Lord, who have a sound sense of morality and whose view of the
world is established by biblical wisdom and truth. According to Mr. McDowell's analysis, neither
President Obama nor Mr. Romney meet God's qualifications for elected
leaders. Neither of them has a fear of
the Lord. They both have a fatally flawed sense of morality, and thus, neither
of them is capable of developing a biblical worldview. Both of these candidates have failed to meet
a single one of the three qualifications.
What should we do in such a case?

According to Mr. McDowell, we should still vote for Mr.
Romney in spite of his failures because "slowing the train down will give
us more time to prepare new leaders."
And "to those who say they cannot vote for either," Mr.
McDowell says, "this is in reality a vote for the least Biblical guy. By
your tacit consent, you are helping put the worst guy in office. At 100 miles
per hour, I fear we cannot last long enough to restore America to its place as
the most free, prosperous, virtuous, and just nation the world has ever
seen." In other words, Mr. McDowell
never had any intention of voting for the candidate who most aligns with God's
qualifications of elected leadership. He
has his own, humanistic standard by which he has chosen his candidate. He is planning to vote for the candidate whom
he (in his finite little mind) thinks will do the most to slow down our failing
economy. This is most definitely not how
a Christian should decide who to vote for in the 2012 election.

I will close with the same quote from Noah Webster that
Mr. McDowell referenced in his article:

"Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands
you to choose for yourselves rulers, 'just men who rule in the fear of God.'
The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge
of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in
office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the
public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent
men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be
squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or
disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and
happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and
elect bad men to make and administer the laws."

The command of God that Mr. Webster referred to is found
in II Samuel 23:3 where we read, "The God of Israel said, the Rock of
Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of
God." As Christians and as
Americans, it is our duty to find and vote for a candidate who meets God's
qualifications for office. I hope that
you will join me in refusing to neglect the divine commands and in preserving
our republican government through the faithful discharge of this sacred duty.